Next Article in Journal
Experimental Investigation on Static Performance of Novel Precast Concrete Composite Slab–Composite Shear Wall Connections
Previous Article in Journal
An Evolutionary Game Study on the Collaborative Mechanism for Construction Digitalization Among Governments, Contractors, and Service Providers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/buildings15111934
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Importance of Campus Walkability for Academic Performance

by
Haiming Wang
1,
Zhehao Zhang
2,*,
Jieli Sui
2 and
Wei Zhang
2
1
School of Architecture and Engineering, Yantai Institute of Technology, Yantai 264003, China
2
School of Architecture, Yantai University, Yantai 264005, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(11), 1934; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15111934
Submission received: 21 April 2025 / Revised: 28 May 2025 / Accepted: 1 June 2025 / Published: 3 June 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

While campus-built environments constitute critical determinants of educational outcomes, empirical research remains scarce regarding how campus pedestrian-oriented design influences academic performance through underlying psycho-behavioral pathways. To address this research gap, we collected research data through a questionnaire survey conducted at a university in Yantai, China, and applied path analysis within structural equation modeling (SEM) to investigate the linkage of perceived campus walkability with academic performance and untangle the mediating effects of walking activity, social capital, and mental health on this linkage. Key findings revealed that perceived campus walkability exerts a significant total effect on academic performance only through its indirect effect. Social capital and mental health significantly mediate the relationship between perceived campus walkability and academic performance, while walking activity has a marginal impact on this relationship. Moreover, grades significantly promote academic performance, while BMI significantly inhibits academic performance. Targeted interventions to enhance academic performance were proposed when translating findings into design protocols.

1. Introduction

The success of college students mostly depends on their academic performance; therefore, they pay more attention to their studies [1]. Higher academic performance positively affects their self-esteem, ensures that they obtain a degree and get a position, and contributes to higher levels of satisfaction with their college life [2,3]. Simultaneously, academic performance can be closely related to the university’s reputation and economy and the well-being of a generation [2]. Notably, one of the missions of university campus planning and construction is to promote university teaching and learning to enhance students’ academic performance [2]. Consequently, it is a practical and effective approach to improving students’ academic performance through campus environmental interventions. However, empirical research examining the correlation between campus environmental attributes and academic outcomes remains limited, particularly campus walkability closely related to students’ daily lives and behavioral activities [4,5]. The scarcity of this domain will impose challenges to developing reasonable pedagogy-oriented campus planning and design strategies.
Limited studies have explored the correlations between campus environments of school climate [6,7], campus form [8], trees and landscapes [9,10], and academic performance. However, these studies primarily untangled their direct correlations and omitted the prospective factors’ mediating effect on these correlations. Neglecting the mediating effect may impose challenges to uncovering the mechanism underlying campus environments and academic performance, underestimate certain environmental features, and misguide the planning practice [11,12]. For example, certain campus environmental features significantly affect academic outcomes only through their indirect effect [6]. Therefore, we will not accurately derive the impact results without exploring the mediating effects of potential mediating variables on the role of the campus environment in shaping academic performance.
Although scholars have applied the Attention Recovery Theory and Stress Recovery Theory and considered self-esteem to elucidate the mediating effect on the association between campus environments and academic performance [6,13], three mediating variables of walking activity, social capital, and mental health have not been examined in detail. First, university students commute on campus primarily by walking, particularly in China; high campus walkability could promote walking activity [14]. Advancement in walking activity reduces students’ sedentary behavior and improves their physical health, and being physically healthy could further contribute to students’ learning efficiency [15]. Second, high campus walkability could enhance students’ sense of campus belonging and social capital [8]. Enhancing social capital could promote communication and contact among peers, cultivate professional interests solve learning difficulties, and then effectively improve their academic performance [16]. Finally, campus environments exhibit a significant correlation with mental health disorders, particularly anxiety and depression [17], and students’ mental illnesses can jeopardize their academic effectiveness and performance [18,19]. Therefore, the mentioned three potential factors could play a pronounced role in linking the correlation of campus walkability with academic performance. Nevertheless, research on the mediating effects of these factors in linking campus walkability to academic performance remains scarce. Only by thoroughly examining the mediating effects of these factors could we comprehensively study the mechanisms by which campus walkability affects academic achievement and propose more accurate intervention strategies.
Consequently, in response to these identified research gaps, we introduced a conceptual model linking perceived campus walkability with prospective mediators and academic performance (Figure 1). To enhance the response rate of valid questionnaires, we conducted expert and student consultations and reviewed the existing literature, ultimately selecting representative walkability features widely applied and validated in prior studies [20,21,22,23,24]. Specifically, we chose facility accessibility, street network connectivity, sidewalk design, aesthetics and walking environmental quality, and traffic safety to construct the walkability variables. Simultaneously, we integrated the logically derived and theoretically hypothesized mediating variables mentioned above to construct the conceptual model of this study. Further, structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to analyze the survey responses collected from students at a university in Yantai, China. We explored the relationships between perceived campus walkability, three academic performance determinants, and academic performance. We aim to address two research questions: (1) What is the empirical linkage between the perceived campus walkability and academic outcomes? (2) How do walking activity, social capital, and mental health mediate this linkage? We hypothesized that perceived campus walkability positively links with academic performance. Three mediators could significantly mediate the linkages between perceived campus walkability and academic performance.
This study offers two main contributions to the literature. First, we disentangled the direct, indirect, and overall impacts of perceived campus walkability on academic performance. Second, we elucidated the mediating mechanisms through which walking activity, social capital, and mental health link perceived campus walkability to academic performance. Understanding this meticulous mechanism can enrich the existing planning and educational theoretical systems and provide scientific evidence and decision-making references for exploring practical ways to promote campus walkability and students’ academic performance. To date, this study is the first to investigate the potential mechanism underlying campus walkability and academic performance. Therefore, it makes an original contribution to the design-pedagogy relationship literature.
The subsequent sections of this paper are organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the literature on campus environmental characteristics and academic performance. Section 3 outlines the research setting, investigated variables, and applied analytical methodologies. Section 4 presents and discusses the results derived from the SEM analysis. Finally, Section 5 summarizes the research conclusions.

2. Literature Review

Enhanced academic performance is critical to raising college students’ self-esteem [6], applying for degrees and future employment [3], and the reputation of the institution as a whole [2]. Consequently, investigating the interrelationships among psychological–behavioral factors, physical–mental health, and academic performance has emerged as a key research priority across multiple disciplines. Scholars revealed that self-esteem and personality traits [6], socio-demographics of age and household income [19], obesity [15,25], depression [26], psychological well-being, and behavioral factors [3,27] are closely related to academic performance. Moreover, due to the context of the enclosed characteristic of Chinese campuses and the policy of compelling students to live in on-campus dormitories [28], college students do not have the privilege of residential self-selection [29], their daily routines of learning, living and entertaining, are primarily within the campus. Therefore, theoretically, in addition to psychosocial factors, a campus’s physical environment can also affect academic performance [8]. However, established campus environmental planning and design strategies are developed mainly by architects [2], often dominated by formations such as axis and geometric composition [28]. Few studies meticulously considered campus environments’ effect on academic performance or empirically validated the effectiveness of enhancing learning experience-promoted campus design strategies [30].
Limited empirical studies have examined the relationship between campus environment and academic performance. They primarily focused on the impact of the campus green space and vegetation environment on the academic performance of non-college students. They discovered that tree canopy [13], tree amount [31], and nature exposure [10] could significantly affect school students’ reading performance and mathematics scores. Moreover, many other scholars have actively researched the relationship between internal and social campus environments, such as school climate, and students’ academic performance. They observed that enhancing school climate could significantly contribute to students’ academic achievement and performance [6,7]. However, these studies focused on non-college students. They considered partial physical environments, ignoring other campus environment attributes such as walkability-related features closely related to college students’ predominant mode of travel by foot [4,14]. Many scholars have highlighted the significant role of walkability in measuring urban environments and affecting health, travel, and other issues [14,20,32]. Specifically, Balletto et al. proposed a well-known tool named the Walkability in Big Buildings Index (WBBI), which is designed for disused urban regions and based on the 15-minute city concept to evaluate the walkability of barracks complexes [33]. The tool integrates three types of indicators—porosity indicator (PI), crossing indicator (CI), and attractiveness indicator (AI)—and tests its feasibility using the main enclaves of Cagliari as a case study. Notably, considering the discrepancy between college students’ lifestyles and those of junior and senior high school students, as well as the larger scale of the college campus environment, directly applying the above outcomes to college campuses may mislead design practice.
Few scholars have proposed methods and indicators to quantify the university campus environment, such as the campus score, to explore its impact on first-year retention and graduation rates. They found that the campus score significantly contributes to academic achievement [2]. Nevertheless, they did not explore in detail the mechanisms by which the campus environment affects academic performance, such as whether it affects performance directly or indirectly through mediating variables or both. The imperative of the research mechanism analysis is reflected in the capability to accurately explore the influence of the campus environments on academic performance. This is because the influence of certain factors on academic performance is manifested only through indirect effects. For example, Baig et al. observed that the campus environment merely significantly influenced academic performance through self-esteem [6]. Moreover, other studies also underscored the necessity of investigating the mediators’ indirect effects to derive the influence outcome accurately [11,12]. Another significant aspect is that examining the indirect effects of mediator variables can explore how campus environments influence academic performance, thereby expanding the existing theoretical body of research concerning the campus environment and academic performance correlation to propose more comprehensive theoretical frameworks to obtain precise correlation outcomes.
Notably, existing studies have attempted to apply Attention Restoration Theory and Stress Recovery Theory to elucidate mechanisms by which campus green space environments affect academic performance. They demonstrated that students’ engagement in learning and academic performance is enhanced by exposure to nature to improve concentration and mitigate stress [13,34]. Another study explained that campus environments can positively contribute to academic achievement through self-esteem enhancement [6]. While the aforementioned studies have explored the practical mediating effects of psychosocial factors in connecting campus environment and academic performance, many other significant mediating variables have not been meticulously examined. First, walking is the predominant mode of travel on Chinese university campuses [28]; a supportive walking environment can positively promote walking activity [4,5]. Elevated walking activity can restrain sedentary behavior, promote health [22], and further positively contribute to academic performance [26]. Therefore, the walking activity could effectively promote the connection between campus walkability and academic performance. Second, the enhancement of social capital can strengthen the interactions between peers and address learning difficulties by participating in social and academic communication activities, thus boosting their sense of campus belonging and academic performance [16]. Meanwhile, scholars have substantiated that different measured built environment walkability can significantly promote social capital [20,35]. Accordingly, social capital could play a pronounced role in bridging the correlation between campus walkability and academic performance.
Finally, mental health can affect students’ attention, emotions, and learning efficiency [26], especially for students suffering from anxiety and depression [18,19], thereby reducing students’ academic achievement and performance. Likewise, campus environments could significantly correlate with students’ depression and anxiety symptoms. Like this study’s campus sample, many Chinese campuses found that campus accessibility, road conditions and safety, aesthetics, and natural environments of trees, water, etc., are beneficial for students’ mental health conditions [22,36]. Simultaneously, studies conducted in developed countries have revealed that campus environments of connectedness to nature, perceived campus greenness, and self-evaluated qualities of campus outdoor green spaces could significantly promote mental health [37,38,39]. Moreover, in contrast to the urban campus setting of this study, the health impacts of suburbanization also warrant focused attention. Drawing on diverse methodologies and empirical cases, Keil and Wu illuminated that peripheral spaces should lie at the heart of urban theory [40]. They clarified multifaceted manifestations of peripheral urbanization and defined urban peripheries through three complex aspects of land, infrastructure, and governance, combining diversified empirical work from Asia, Europe, Africa, and other regions. They advocate for the necessity of researching urban peripheries to form a diversified metropolitan landscape [40]. Considering the significance of urban peripheries on urbanization, many scholars investigated the effect of the suburban campus environment on students’ health conditions. They found that campus social capital, block length, land use diversity, sidewalk quality, and other features significantly correlate with students’ health behavior [41,42]. Consequently, mental health could significantly mediate the linkage of campus walkability and academic performance. Nevertheless, none of the existing studies have delineated the association between the three mediating variables, campus walkability, and academic performance. Lacking analysis in this realm will impose a challenge to precisely investigate the mechanisms underlying campus walkability and academic performance and develop accurate campus planning strategies.
In summary, extant studies have systematically uncovered relationships between diversified campus environments, social psychology features, and other factors with academic performance. However, the impact of planning and design dimensions of campus walkability on academic performance remains critically understudied in the existing literature. Further, underlying mediators that may influence the effect have not been explored in detail. Specifically, does campus walkability significantly influence academic achievement? If so, is the effect direct, indirect, or both? If in an indirect pattern, what mediators are more critical? Answering these questions can help us examine the relationship between students’ perceptions of campus walkability and their academic achievement outcomes and analyze the mediating impacts of differential potential mediators, thus providing data support for designing interventions and decision-making.

3. Methods

3.1. Study Area

Data were collected through a cross-sectional survey conducted at a university located in Yantai, China, from March to April 2024. The investigated respondents are registered students living on the campus. Unlike specialized institutions such as medical colleges or schools of architecture—which primarily embody the characteristics of discipline-specific campuses—the selected university is a comprehensive institution offering a broad spectrum of disciplines, including liberal arts, sciences, engineering, arts, and physical education. The findings from student assessments conducted on this campus are thus representative of the general traits of contemporary Chinese university students. Furthermore, the selected campus spans 3000 acres and enrolls over 20,000 students. This scale and enrollment profile align with those of other Chinese universities, such as institutions in Tianjin, Beijing, and other regions [4,43]. The campus demonstrates comprehensive functional zoning, incorporating educational facilities, community service areas, residential zones, public squares, green spaces, and water features throughout its grounds. These features, which integrate planning forms, facility layouts, and other built environment components, could align with the distinctive characteristics of typical Chinese campuses. Notably, this study focuses on proposing a theoretical model to explore the correlation between campus walkability and academic performance and to examine the feasibility of the theoretical model using a university in Yantai as an example. Therefore, the aforementioned characteristics and statement collectively demonstrate that the selected campus epitomizes both Chinese campus environments and students’ daily life patterns, thereby offering generalizability to broader contexts. To ensure the collected data could represent the ubiquitous characteristics of the on-campus student population, we randomly selected students across all academic units to complete the questionnaire. We selected students who had lived on campus for a specific period. This is because it would be difficult to accurately evaluate the campus environment without having lived on campus for a while. Moreover, for the same purpose, we selected full-time on-campus students and excluded part-time students residing off-campus. Before drafting the questionnaire, we convened a group of experts and students to discuss the questionnaire items. Based on their feedback, we learned that overly long questionnaire items could reduce students’ patience in completing the survey, affecting the results’ accuracy. Therefore, we selected a number and category of representative questionnaire items that have been widely used and validated in existing literature [20,21,22,23,24]. This ensured that the designed questionnaire could effectively reflect the framework of this study while reasonably controlling the time students spent filling it out, ultimately improving the efficiency of collecting valid responses. The questionnaire was distributed online. This study received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee of Yantai University. The approval date and code number were 06/03/2024 and YTUHR-20240306-001, respectively. Before completing the questionnaire, participants were notified of the study objectives and assured of anonymous responses. Meanwhile, we obtained the verbal consent from the participants. No personally identifiable information was recorded on the questionnaire. We collected 2035 questionnaires. After excluding incomplete samples, we finally received 1390 valid questionnaires with a valid questionnaire return rate of 70.27%.

3.2. Research Variables

Dependent variable: Since Chinese universities keep statistics on the average scores of the courses taken by students every semester and can comprehensively assess the students’ academic achievements, we employ this score and classify it into five categories [34]. Independent variable: This study selected the perceived campus walkability as the independent variable. We applied the Abbreviated Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS-A) to measure it [21]. To ensure data quality in unsupervised online surveys while minimizing respondent burden, we implemented a validated condensed instrument comprising five core dimensions of walkability features [20,21,22,23,24]: accessibility to facilities, street network connectivity, sidewalk design, aesthetics and walking environmental quality, and safety from traffic. Participants rated each item using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Table 1 exhibits detailed information. Socio-demographic information: We collected students’ age, grades, body mass index (BMI), and family income.
Table 2 summarizes the socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants. Male participants accounted for 55.41% of the total sample. The proportion of lower- and upper-grade students (freshmen and sophomores) was approximately equal, comprising around 50%. The majority of participants came from low- to middle-income families, while over 15% of students were classified as overweight or obese. Finally, most students achieved grades in the range of 70–79 points.
Mediator variable: According to the previous detailed illustration, we chose three potential mediators of walking activity, social capital, and mental health. Considering the difficulty in recalling the accurate walking duration and congruent with the existing studies [44,45], we measured students’ weekly walking frequency as the walking activity variable. We measured social capital through three questions, consistent with prior studies [5,22,23]. A validated five-point Likert instrument, with response anchors from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), was used to evaluate social capital. Existing research has established depression as a robust proxy for assessing mental health [46]. The 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) is widely recognized as the gold standard for depression assessment and has been applied in various populations and settings [9,47]. This instrument’s dual applicability-yielding research data informing clinical interventions is particularly valuable for campus mental health studies. Consequently, we applied the PHQ-9 to measure students’ depression as the mental health variable. The PHQ-9 consists of nine items designed to correspond with the diagnostic criteria outlined in the DSM-IV for depression.
Participants retrospectively assessed their depressive symptoms during the prior two-week period through a standardized four-point Likert-type questionnaire that had been previously validated for psychometric reliability [47]. Because the questionnaire is in Chinese version, we translated the question into Chinese according to the existing research method [9]. Students are requested to evaluate how long they have been troubled by the following nine questions: 1. Lack of interest or pleasure in activities. 2. Feelings of sadness, hopelessness, or despair. 3. Insomnia or hypersomnia. 4. Fatigue or loss of energy. 5. Significant changes in appetite (loss of appetite or overeating). 6. Feelings of worthlessness or excessive guilt (causing family disappointment). 7. Difficulty concentrating when reading, attending classes, or studying. 8. Deliberate self-slowing of speech or emotional outbursts (irritability) to seek attention. 9. Recurrent thoughts of self-harm or suicide. They selected the answer from 0 = almost never, 1 = occurs several days, 2 = occurs more than half the days, and 3 = occurs daily. Adopting Kroenke et al.’s validated five-level classification system (from normal to severe) [9], researchers can achieve more precise assessments of respondents’ depression severity. The total composite score derived from all items was 0 to 27. The mental health profiles of the research cohort are displayed in Table 3. 60% of students exhibited normal mental conditions, while over 30% presented mild depression symptoms. Less than 10% were diagnosed with moderate or higher levels of depression disorders.

3.3. Data Analysis

We first verified the questionnaire data through reliability analysis. The Cronbach’s alpha of the measured perceived campus walkability, social capital, and mental health was 0.889, 0.865, and 0.875, respectively. This means the evaluated questionnaire data demonstrated reliable internal consistency in the current sample. Further, we conducted the validity of the collected data. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation was performed in SPSS 25.0 to examine the construct validity of the perceived variables. The measurement model comprised eight indicators: five for perceived campus walkability and three for social capital. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s sphericity tests are 0.878 and p < 0.001, respectively. Meanwhile, the varimax rotation with Kaiser normalization extracted two factors accounting for 68.4% of the cumulative variance. This statistical analysis substantiated the construct validity of the variables investigated in this study. We further applied the AMOS (version 25) software package in SEM to verify the measurement model’s convergent validity. As shown in Table 4, both the composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) values surpass the thresholds proposed by Fornell and Larcker [48]. We ultimately tested the discriminant validity of the questionnaire data and discovered that the square root of the AVE associated with perceived campus walkability and social capital is 0.766 and 0.815, respectively. They are higher than the correlation coefficient of the two factors of 0.100. This confirms that the collected data passed the discriminant validity. Collectively, these results affirm the reliability and structural soundness of the questionnaire data and the hypothesized measurement model. Considering the advantage of the SEM in analyzing the research variables’ direct, indirect, and total effects on the outcome variable, we built one model to disentangle the mechanism underlying the perceived campus walkability and academic performance and compared the relative importance of different potential indirect effects. According to the literature [5,49], a bootstrap procedure with 1000 iterations was applied to evaluate significance levels and enhance result accuracy.

4. Results

From Figure 2, we found that the X2/df of the model is 2.911, comparative fit index (CFI) and goodness of fit index (GFI) > 0.8, root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) < 0.1, which means that the model demonstrated a good fit for the data and confirmed its reliability.
From Table 5, we disclosed that the total effect of perceived campus walkability on academic performance is statistically significant. However, the total effect is only exhibited through the indirect effect. Social capital is significantly and positively correlated with academic performance, while mental health exerts a prominent role in inhibiting academic performance. Comparatively, the effect of walking activity on academic performance is marginally significant.
Table 6 reveals that all three mediators significantly mediate the link between perceived campus walkability and academic performance to differing extents. Notably, mental health has the highest contribution in connecting this relationship; its significance is exhibited at p < 0.01, while social capital significantly mediates this relationship at p < 0.05. In contrast, the significance of walking activity is at p < 0.1. Regarding the socio-demographic information, we found that the total effect of grades on academic performance is statistically significant and positive. Comparatively, the total effect of BMI on academic performance is statistically significant and negative. Considering high BMI index is closely related to obesity, this finding illustrates that students who are overweight or obese are less likely to perform well academically.
Moreover, perceived campus walkability promotes social capital and walking activity while significantly inhibiting mental health. This means that promoting campus walkability can provide a supportive and pleasant campus environment that encourages students to engage in walking and social activities to increase their sense of belonging and suppress health problems such as anxiety and depression. Additionally, grades significantly and positively correlate with mental health, whereas they are significantly and negatively associated with perceived campus walkability and walking activity. Family income is significantly related to perceived campus walkability and social capital, while it plays a marginal negative effect on mental health. Finally, BMI is significantly and adversely associated with perceived campus walkability. Comparatively, it is significantly and positively related to mental health.

5. Discussion

Although campus environmental intervention significantly affects students’ academic achievements, few studies have investigated how campus walkability influences academic performance. Accordingly, the dataset from a questionnaire survey at a university in Yantai, China, was analyzed using SEM to untangle the pathways between perceived campus walkability, academic performance determinants, and academic performance. Path analysis was utilized to analyze the pathways from perceived campus walkability to academic performance, including direct, indirect, and total effects and mediator importance. The findings effectively address the research questions and confirm the research hypotheses and the rationality of the research model proposed in this study. Several critical findings will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
Perceived campus walkability significantly correlated with academic performance merely through its indirect effect. Consistent with our postulation and conclusions derived from other studies that applied SEM [6,11,12], this finding emphasized the importance of researching mediating effects. Without mediating effects, examinations could not accurately detect that perceived campus walkability significantly affects academic performance, thus underestimating its significance. Therefore, an essential insight is that scholars should appropriately employ and investigate the mediating effects of prospective mediators in the impact of campus environment on learning and academic outcomes. Specifically, the SEM method used in this study can analyze the direct and indirect effects between variables and can accurately explore variables that significantly influence academic performance only through its indirect effect, thus obtaining accurate determinants of academic performance and revealing the actual mechanism underlying campus walkability and academic performance. Meanwhile, SEM enables the simultaneous analysis of multiple independent variables, dependent variables, and latent constructs while revealing hierarchical relationships among variables. This approach overcomes the limitations of traditional statistical methods in handling multivariate data and complex causal relationships. Moreover, path analysis within SEM allows the simultaneous quantification of mediating effect magnitudes across multiple mediator variables to prioritize the limited resources to improve academic performance effectively. Therefore, the SEM-based analytical approach and validated conceptual model developed in this study can be extended to investigate the relationship between campus walkability and academic performance in future research.
Considering the significant promoting effect of campus walkability on academic performance, another notable insight of campus planning for campus planners is that campus planners should enhance the walkability of the campus environment, specifically by improving access to on-campus facilities, enhancing pathway connectivity and selectivity, improving the configuration and aesthetic quality of pedestrian amenities, and improving traffic safety through measures such as speed limits and traffic restrictions to promote student academic achievement jointly.
Notably, the potential influence mechanism underlying campus walkability and academic performance in this study is that increased walkability of campus environments promotes higher levels of walking [4,14], socialization [8], and healing of health disorders such as depression and anxiety [22], which in turn improves students’ learning efficiency, problem-solving, and academic performance. Specifically, mental health exerts the highest significant mediating effect on the correlation between perceived campus walkability and academic performance. This is because mental illnesses such as anxiety and depression create disinterest, resistance, or even aversion to learning, which can lead to inattention and distraction, resulting in a decline in academic performance. The extant studies also verify this finding [15,19,34]. Moreover, evaluated walkability environments with high aesthetics, such as pleasing natural and outdoor spaces [17,37] and green places [34], can positively contribute to inhibiting mental illness. Decreased stress can promote concentration and subsequently improve academic performance [13]. Therefore, mental health is prominent in linking perceived campus walkability to academic performance.
Notably, to reduce depression and anxiety among college students, most Chinese universities conduct annual psychological assessments of enrolled students and focus on and converse with students with mental health disorders. The results of this study rightly validate the necessity of this initiative. A significant insight from this finding is that campus administrators and instructors should continue to promote the assessment of the mental health of college students and take appropriate counseling measures for students with mental health problems, such as improving the quality of campus greenery and landscaping to encourage students’ exposure to natural settings reduces anxiety and depression symptoms, leading to improved academic outcomes.
Social capital has a significant relationship with academic performance and is essential in connecting the linkage between perceived campus walkability and academic performance. This finding aligns with our expectations. This study operationalized perceived social capital through three indicators: greeting, friendship formation, and seeking help from peers. Social capital improvement could promote communication and bonding among students and increase their social awareness, broaden their academic knowledge, cultivate their practical skills, and enhance their academic performance [16]. Moreover, high environmental walkability with good aesthetic qualities, such as many interesting spaces and good accessibility to facilities and activities to organize and participate in social activities, thus increasing the sense of campus belonging and social capital [8]. Accordingly, social capital exerts a prominent mediating effect on the linkage of perceived campus walkability and academic performance. Campus administrators should organize various social and academic lectures and exchanges simultaneously increasing accessibility to these venues. For example, architecture schools in many Chinese universities often attract students to visit, discuss, and learn by exhibiting outstanding students’ assignments and inviting professional experts to conduct drawing reviews, thus enriching learning resources and environments for students to enhance their learning achievements and performance. Moreover, designers should upgrade the quality of the campus environment and configure diverse public spaces to provide a variety of teaching and learning environments for the courses. Thomas, in his geo-design pedagogy, enables students to choose the location of the courses, such as an outdoor lawn or a coffee shop, and to enhance the communication between peers to promote a sense of course belonging, which will help the students to remember the teaching materials, and improve their academic success [50].
We disclosed that walking activity marginalizes the relationship between perceived campus walkability and academic performance. Chinese campuses’ enclosed design necessitates walking as the primary transit mode [28]; walking plays a critical role in students’ daily lives, and improving walking activity could promote physical health and concentration and further contribute to academic performance [15]. However, compared to moderate to high-intensity physical activity that releases neurotransmitters such as dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine, which significantly enhance memory, concentration, and motivation to learn [51], walking activity consumes fewer calories and releases less of these substances, and thus exerts a weaker effect on academic performance. Notably, although walking activity played a weaker influential role in mediating the effects of perceived campus walkability and academic performance, boosting walking activity is still critical for college students because increased walking activity effectively deters sedentary behaviors and improves physical and mental health [22,29]. Meanwhile, consistent with the existing studies [4,14], this study found campus walkability is significantly related to walking activity. Consequently, pedestrian-oriented campus planning strategies should be further strengthened and applied to improve campus walkability and health outcomes.
Regarding socio-demographics, we disclosed that grades significantly and negatively correlate with academic performance. This means that students newly admitted to the college continue their study habits from high school and are more engaged in their studies, resulting in better academic performance. Moreover, BMI shows a significant adverse effect on academic performance. This means that students who are overweight or obese tend to exhibit lower academic outcomes. This is because this group of students is highly likely to suffer from sedentary habits, internet addiction, and lack of physical activity, which exert detrimental effects on holistic health (physical and mental) and ultimately result in diminished academic outcomes. This finding corroborates previous research on this topic [15,25]. These findings provide significant insight into the need for university education administrators to focus on academic outcomes among upper-level students and those with overweight or obesity through appropriate nutrition and weight management programs.

6. Conclusions

This study aimed to investigate the direct, indirect, and total effect of campus walkability on academic performance to elucidate the mechanisms underlying campus environments and academic performance while investigating the mediating roles of three prospective factors. We further differentiated this relationship’s mediating pathways of walking activity, social capital, and mental health. The findings revealed the following: (1) Perceived campus walkability exhibited a significant total effect on academic performance, which was exclusively mediated through indirect pathways. (2) Mental health and social capital significantly mediated the association between perceived walkability and academic performance, whereas walking activity demonstrated negligible mediating effects. (3) While social capital and mental health showed independent associations with academic performance, walking activity displayed only marginal direct correlations. (4) Higher grades were linked to lower academic performance, while lower BMI emerged as a positive predictor of academic achievement.
Notably, the proposed theoretical model combining walking activity, social capital, and mental health to investigate the influence of campus walkability on academic performance was verified. It could be further applied to other regions’ campuses. The mechanism of how campus environmental perceptions influence academic success was appropriately disclosed in this study. It helps advance our theoretical understanding of the campus environment-academic performance nexus, suggesting that enhancing walkability could indirectly foster academic growth primarily through psychological and social pathways. Moreover, the mechanisms identified in this study can inform the development of academic performance promotion-oriented campus walkability design strategies. Considering this study’s walkability features encompassed facility accessibility, street connectivity, sidewalk design, aesthetics and walking environmental quality, and traffic safety, planners should enhance the accessibility of diverse public service facilities, improve campus street network connectivity, upgrade micro-scale street environments through greening initiatives and sidewalk widening alongside safety improvements via pedestrian-vehicle separation and speed limit signage installation to boost campus walkability synergistically. Additionally, this study found social capital and mental health significantly influence academic performance. Accordingly, campus administrators should implement multifaceted social programs to enhance campus social capital while prioritizing targeted mental health interventions for students diagnosed with psychiatric disorders to promote academic achievement proactively.
This study contributes a new theoretical paradigm for examining the relationship between perceived campus walkability and academic achievement, demonstrating its validity within the specific context of the university in Yantai. Nevertheless, the model’s cross-contextual robustness warrants further empirical investigation across geographically distinct campus environments. Due to limited resources, while this study selected representative factors aligned with research hypotheses and conceptual model, further integration of objectively measured walkability elements and other prospective mediating factors influencing the association between the two remains to refine the theoretical model. Accordingly, future research should expand the geographical scope by selecting case campuses across diverse urban areas to enhance sample diversity and quantify objective walkability characteristics and other features across different campuses to rigorously test the proposed theoretical model’s robustness. This future direction will enrich measurement metrics while comprehensively capturing walkability elements influencing academic performance to inform more nuanced campus planning and design strategies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.W. and Z.Z.; methodology, H.W. and J.S.; software, W.Z.; validation, H.W., Z.Z., and J.S.; formal analysis, H.W. and Z.Z.; investigation, H.W. and J.S.; resources, Z.Z.; data curation, H.W. and J.S.; writing—original draft preparation, H.W. and Z.Z.; writing—review and editing, Z.Z.; visualization, J.S. and W.Z.; supervision, Z.Z.; project administration, Z.Z.; funding acquisition, Z.Z. and J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the project ZR2023QE328 supported by Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation; project 22CWYJ35 supported by Shandong Social Science Planning Fund Program; and the Institute for Human Settlements and Sustainable Development in Coastal Areas.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Aghamolaei, T.; Shirazi, M.; Dadgaran, I.; Shahsavari, H.; Ghanbarnejad, A. Health students’ expectations of the ideal educational environment: A qualitative research. J. Adv. Med. Educ. Prof. 2014, 2, 151. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  2. Hajrasouliha, A.H.; Ewing, R. Campus does matter. Plan. High. Educ. 2016, 44, 30–45. [Google Scholar]
  3. Lo, O.T.; Ip, T. How does the psychological well-being (PWB) in the first year of college studies predict community college students’ academic performance in Hong Kong? Community Coll. J. Res. 2022, 46, 161–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhang, Z.; Fisher, T.; Wang, H. Campus environmental quality and streetscape features related to walking activity. J. Asian Arch. Build. 2024, 23, 405–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhang, Z.; Wang, J.; Wang, H.; Wu, J. Relationships between students’ perceived campus walkability, mental health, and life satisfaction during COVID-19. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 14333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Baig, M.; Ahmad, Y.; Shahzad, A.; Naseem, A. Impact of Campus Environment and Personality Traits on the Academic Performance and Psychological Well-Being of Engineering Undergraduates: The Mediating Role of Engineering Self-Efficacy. IEEE Trans. Educ. 2024, 68, 140–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, W.; Vaillancourt, T.; Brittain, H.L.; McDougall, P.; Krygsman, A.; Smith, D.; Cunningham, C.E.; Haltigan, J.D.; Hymel, S. School climate, peer victimization, and academic achievement: Results from a multi-informant study. Sch. Psychol. Q. 2014, 29, 360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hajrasouliha, A. Connecting the dots: Campus form, student perceptions, and academic performance. Focus 2019, 15, 12. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kroenke, K.; Spitzer, R.L.; Williams, J.B.W. The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2001, 16, 606–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Matsuoka, R.H. Student performance and high school landscapes: Examining the links. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 273–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ding, C.; Wang, D.; Liu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, J. Exploring the influence of built environment on travel mode choice considering the mediating effects of car ownership and travel distance. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017, 100, 65–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Van Acker, V.; Witlox, F. Car ownership as mediating variable in car travel behavior research using a structural equation modelling approach to identify its dual relationship. J. Transp. Geogr. 2010, 18, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hodson, C.B.; Sander, H.A. Green urban landscapes and school-level academic performance. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 160, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhang, Z.; Fisher, T.; Wang, H. Walk Score, Environmental Quality and Walking in a Campus Setting. Land 2023, 12, 732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mondal, S.; Basu, C.; Alkhawaitri, M.; Almamari, I.; Albrwaney, S.; Alhabsi, T. Obesity among college students in Oman: Implications for health and academic performance. Bmc Public Health 2025, 25, 1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Carales, V.D.; Hooker, D.L. Finding where I belong: How community colleges can transform their institutional environments to facilitate students’ sense of belonging on campus. J. Appl. Res. Community Coll. 2019, 26, 41–50. [Google Scholar]
  17. Koning, M.; Kim, J.H.; Saeidi-Rizi, F.; Durst, N. The role of the campus outdoor environment on university student mental health. J. People Plants Environ. 2022, 25, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mou, Q.; Zhuang, J.; Wu, Q.; Zhong, Y.; Dai, Q.; Cao, X.; Gao, Y.; Lu, Q.; Zhao, M. Social media addiction and academic engagement as serial mediators between social anxiety and academic performance among college students. Bmc Psychol. 2024, 12, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Al-Hazmi, B.H.; Sabur, S.S.; Al-Hazmi, R.H. Social anxiety disorder in medical students at Taibah University, Saudi Arabia. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care 2020, 9, 4329–4332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jun, H.J.; Hur, M. The relationship between walkability and neighborhood social environment: The importance of physical and perceived walkability. Appl. Geogr. 2015, 62, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cerin, E.; Conway, T.L.; Saelens, B.E.; Frank, L.D.; Sallis, J.F. Cross-validation of the factorial structure of the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS) and its abbreviated form (NEWS-A). Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phy. 2009, 6, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Liu, M.; Zhao, S.; Li, J. Associations among perceived built environment, attitudes, walking behavior, and physical and mental state of college students during COVID-19. Travel. Behav. Soc. 2022, 28, 170–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Li, X.; Li, Y.; Xia, B.; Han, Y. Pathways between neighbourhood walkability and mental wellbeing: A case from Hankow, China. J. Transp. Health 2021, 20, 101012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lee, S.M.; Conway, T.L.; Frank, L.D.; Saelens, B.E.; Cain, K.L.; Sallis, J.F. The relation of perceived and objective environment attributes to neighborhood satisfaction. Environ. Behav. 2017, 49, 136–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Anderson, A.S.; Good, D.J. Increased body weight affects academic performance in university students. Prev. Med. Rep. 2017, 5, 220–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wagner, F.; Wagner, R.G.; Kolanisi, U.; Makuapane, L.; Masango, M.; Gómez-Olivé, F. The relationship between depression symptoms and academic performance among first-year undergraduate students at a South African university: A cross-sectional study. Bmc Public Health 2022, 22, 2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Yao, H.; Lian, D.; Cao, Y.; Wu, Y.; Zhou, T. Predicting academic performance for college students: A campus behavior perspective. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2019, 10, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang, Z.; Yang, S.; Wang, H.; Zhou, L. Examining non-linear relationships between campus layout, street design, and walking activity. Transp. Policy 2025, 163, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yang, H.; He, D.; Lu, Y.; Ren, C.; Huang, X. Disentangling residential self-selection from the influence of built environment characteristics on adiposity outcomes among undergraduate students in China. Cities 2021, 113, 103165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Peker, E.; Ataöv, A. Exploring the ways in which campus open space design influences students’ learning experiences. Landsc. Res. 2020, 45, 310–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kweon, B.S.; Ellis, C.D.; Lee, J.; Jacobs, K. The link between school environments and student academic performance. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 23, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, H.; Yang, Y. Neighbourhood walkability: A review and bibliometric analysis. Cities 2019, 93, 43–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Balletto, G.; Ladu, M.; Milesi, A.; Camerin, F.; Borruso, G. Walkable city and military enclaves: Analysis and decision-making approach to support the proximity connection in urban regeneration. Sustainability 2022, 14, 457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liu, W.; Sun, N.; Guo, J.; Zheng, Z. Campus green spaces, academic achievement and mental health of college students. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Koohsari, M.J.; Nakaya, T.; McCormack, G.R.; Shibata, A.; Ishii, K.; Yasunaga, A.; Hanibuchi, T.; Oka, K. Traditional and novel walkable built environment metrics and social capital. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 214, 104184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yang, H.; Cui, X.; Dijst, M.; Tian, S.; Chen, J.; Huang, J. Association between natural/built campus environment and depression among Chinese undergraduates: Multiscale evidence for the moderating role of socioeconomic factors after controlling for residential self-selection. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 844541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Baur, J. Campus community gardens and student health: A case study of a campus garden and student well-being. J. Am. Coll. Health 2022, 70, 377–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Loder, A.K.F.; Schwerdtfeger, A.R.; Van Poppel, M.N.M. Perceived greenness at home and at university are independently associated with mental health. Bmc Public Health 2020, 20, 802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Malekinezhad, F.; Courtney, P.; bin Lamit, H.; Vigani, M. Investigating the mental health impacts of university campus green space through perceived sensory dimensions and the mediation effects of perceived restorativeness on restoration experience. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 578241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Keil, R.; Wu, F. (Eds.) After Suburbia: Urbanization in the Twenty-First Century; University of Toronto Press: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  41. Bartshe, M.; Coughenour, C.; Pharr, J. Perceived walkability, social capital, and self-reported physical activity in Las Vegas college students. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhang, Z.; Wang, H.; Pang, L.; Fisher, T.; Yang, S. Comparisons of Built Environment Correlates of Walking in Urban and Suburban Campuses: A Case Study of Tianjin, China. Land 2023, 12, 1972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhan, G.; Yan, X.; Zhu, S.; Wang, Y. Using hierarchical tree-based regression model to examine university student travel frequency and mode choice patterns in China. Transp. Policy 2016, 45, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Curl, A.; Mason, P. Neighbourhood perceptions and older adults’ wellbeing: Does walking explain the relationship in deprived urban communities? Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019, 123, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sugiyama, T.; Paquet, C.; Howard, N.J.; Coffee, N.T.; Taylor, A.W.; Adams, R.J.; Daniel, M. Public open spaces and walking for recreation: Moderation by attributes of pedestrian environments. Prev. Med. 2014, 62, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Manea, L.; Gilbody, S.; McMillan, D. A diagnostic meta-analysis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) algorithm scoring method as a screen for depression. Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry 2015, 37, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Coughenour, C.; Gakh, M.; Pharr, J.R.; Bungum, T.; Jalene, S. Changes in depression and physical activity among college students on a diverse campus after a COVID-19 stay-at-home order. J. Commun. Health 2021, 46, 758–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mouratidis, K.; Yiannakou, A. What makes cities livable? Determinants of neighborhood satisfaction and neighborhood happiness in different contexts. Land Use policy 2022, 112, 105855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fisher, T. An education in geodesign. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 156, 20–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Trudeau, F.; Shephard, R.J. Relationships of physical activity to brain health and the academic performance of schoolchildren. Am. J. Lifestyle Med. 2010, 4, 138–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 15 01934 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual model of this study.
Figure 1. Conceptual model of this study.
Buildings 15 01934 g001
Buildings 15 01934 g002
Figure 2. Outcomes of the SEM Model.
Figure 2. Outcomes of the SEM Model.
Buildings 15 01934 g002
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the research variables.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the research variables.
VariableDefinitionMaxMinMeanStd
Dependent variable
Academic performanceGrade point average in courses undertaken in the previous semester ranging from 0 to 100 (1 = 59 or below, 2 = 69–60, 3 = 79–70, 4 = 89–80, 5 = 90 or above).513.050.59
Socio-demographic Variables
SexA binary indicator variable denoting the respondent’s gender (0 = female;1 = male).100.290.45
GradeThe educational attainment of the student (1 = freshman; 2 = sophomore; 3 = junior; 4 = senior; 5 = graduate)512.661.52
IncomeAnnual household income (CNY) (1 low income = below 50,000; 2 middle income = 50,000 to 100,000; 3 high income = 100,000 to 250,000)311.570.49
BMIBMI = Weight (kg)/Height (m)^242.0114.1520.983.58
Independent variable
Perceived campus walkability
1 Facility accessibilityMy campus provides convenient access to diversified facilities, such as convenience stores, canteens, cafes, etc.513.480.79
2 Street network connectivityMy campus is characterized by an extensive street network and multi-option pedestrian routes.513.500.91
3 Sidewalk designMy campus has high sidewalk configuration standards, encompassing dimensions of sidewalk quality, sidewalk width, and tidiness.513.460.95
4 Aesthetics and walking environmental qualityMy campus demonstrates excellent walking environmental quality, primarily reflected in its public spaces, street trees, and street furniture.513.400.79
5 Traffic safetyMy campus exhibits high pedestrian traffic safety.513.490.89
Mediator variable
Mental health
Depression (PHQ-9)The total composite score is derived from the nine depression-related items.2704.234.16
Social capital
I am consistently able to engage in communication with and exchange greetings with my classmates and friends while on campus.513.121.21
Establishing friendships on campus is relatively effortless.512.611.17
I consistently receive academic and personal support from peers and classmates within the campus.513.691.21
Walking activity
Walking frequencyAverage walking frequency per week to facilities such as stores, restaurants, public transit stations, etc. (more than 10 min per walk)1409.353.53
Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics and academic performance of the research participants.
Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics and academic performance of the research participants.
VariablesCategoriesN = 1390%
GenderMen62044.59
women77055.41
GradeFreshmen54439.11
Sophomore16111.58
Junior33023.75
Senior1259.01
Graduate23016.55
IncomeLow52137.50
Medium81258.42
High574.08
BMIBMI (18.5–23.9)91165.55
BMI (≤18.4)26318.89
BMI (24–27.9)17012.28
BMI (≥28)463.28
Academic performance90 or above342.47
89–801097.81
79–7093467.19
69–6028520.52
59 or below282.01
Table 3. Descriptive statistical analysis of mental health among research participants.
Table 3. Descriptive statistical analysis of mental health among research participants.
Mental Health (PHQ-9)N%Men (%)Women (%)
Normal (0–4)83460.0645.2854.72
Mild (5–9)44031.6247.3752.63
Moderate (10–14)755.3949.6650.34
Moderately severe (15–19)312.1840.5559.45
Severe (20–27)100.7540.0959.91
Overall1390100
Table 4. Reliability and validity examination of the measured variables.
Table 4. Reliability and validity examination of the measured variables.
Reliability ExaminationValidity Examination
Research FeatureCronbach’s AlphaFactor1Factor2CRAVE
Perceived campus walkability0.889 0.8800.587
Perceived campus walkability 1 0.8680.222
Perceived campus walkability 2 0.7420.190
Perceived campus walkability 3 0.8110.201
Perceived campus walkability 4 0.8540.279
Perceived campus walkability 5 0.6010.355
Social capital0.865 0.8530.665
Social capital 1 0.3200.811
Social capital 2 0.1550.879
Social capital 3 0.2770.835
Note: The KMO of the validity test is 0.878, p < 0.001.
Table 5. Standardized effects (direct, indirect, and total) of the SEM model.
Table 5. Standardized effects (direct, indirect, and total) of the SEM model.
Perceived Campus WalkabilityWalking ActivitySocial
Capital		Mental
Health		Academic Performance
Direct effects
Sex−0.0300.0260.0380.030−0.025
Grade−0.110 **−0.0420.104 **0.0250.158 **
Family income0.054 *−0.0140.036−0.0360.042
BMI−0.087 **−0.0210.0080.040−0.066 *
Perceived campus walkability 0.161 *0.613 **−0.319 *0.040
Walking activity 0.054 a
Social capital 0.131 *
Mental health −0.146 **
Indirect effects
Sex −0.005−0.0190.010−0.001
Grade −0.018 **−0.068 **0.035 **−0.003
Family income 0.009 *0.033 *−0.017 *0.014 a
BMI −0.014 **−0.053 **0.028 **−0.014 a
Perceived campus walkability 0.135 **
Walking activity
Social capital
Mental health
Total effects
Sex−0.0300.0210.0190.040−0.026
Grade−0.110 **−0.060 *0.0360.060 *0.155 **
Family income0.054 *−0.0060.069 *−0.053 a0.056
BMI−0.087 **−0.035−0.0450.067 *−0.080 *
Perceived campus walkability 0.161 *0.613 **−0.319 *0.095 *
Walking activity 0.054 a
Social capital 0.131 *
Mental health −0.146 **
Note: The bold values are the significant variables. a < 0.1; * < 0.05; ** < 0.01.
Table 6. Comparisons of indirect paths of the three mediators.
Table 6. Comparisons of indirect paths of the three mediators.
Path Analysis of Academic PerformanceAcademic Performance
Perceived campus walkability → Walking activity → Academic performance0.010 a
Perceived campus walkability → Social capital →Academic performance0.089 *
Perceived campus walkability → Mental health→ Academic performance0.051 **
Note: a < 0.1; * < 0.05; ** < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, H.; Zhang, Z.; Sui, J.; Zhang, W. The Importance of Campus Walkability for Academic Performance. Buildings 2025, 15, 1934. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15111934

AMA Style

Wang H, Zhang Z, Sui J, Zhang W. The Importance of Campus Walkability for Academic Performance. Buildings. 2025; 15(11):1934. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15111934

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Haiming, Zhehao Zhang, Jieli Sui, and Wei Zhang. 2025. "The Importance of Campus Walkability for Academic Performance" Buildings 15, no. 11: 1934. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15111934

APA Style

Wang, H., Zhang, Z., Sui, J., & Zhang, W. (2025). The Importance of Campus Walkability for Academic Performance. Buildings, 15(11), 1934. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15111934

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop